City and County of Human Rights !"#$% '( )** Commission Mayor Contract Compliance +$,-./* 0*,12./$1%345$6 71.,$%8 9:522 5%" '$;61 )1;52 <.,$%*,, !%/*6-6$,* )*,=$5% >5? <$,*@.52 A65%,8*%"*6 B 7CD +$,;6$:$%5/$1%

Theresa Sparks !@*;./$E* +$6*;/16

Report

Beyond : Unrecognized Family Relationships

Forum and Panel Discussion: October 29, 2009

Report Adopted: March 10, 2011 San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Table of Contents

Page

Acknowledgements.……………………………………………………………………………3

A Note on Language……………………………………………………………………………3

Part I: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...4

Part II: Forum Summary Notes……………………………………………………………....10

Part III: Alternative Family Narratives …..……………………………..……………………30

Part IV: Legislative Proposals…………..……………………………………………………35

Part V: Alternative Family Resources & Links……………………………………………...43

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………..45

Appendix 1: Forum Flyer

Appendix 2: San Francisco Human Rights Commission Press Release

Appendix 3: Colorado Designated Beneficiary Agreementnt

Appendix 4: California Domestic Partnership Registration Form

Appendix 5: California Statutory Will

Appendix 6: Alberta Adult Interdependent Relationships Act Brochure

!"#$ & San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Acknowledgements

The Human Rights Commission would like thank those who made the Beyond Marriage public forum and this report possible, including the honored guest presenters at the forum California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, San Francisco Supervisor David Campos, and Human Rights Commissioner Cecila Chung; the panelists from the forum whose ideas are presented here including Cathy Sakimura and Melanie Rowen, Staff Attorneys from the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Judy Appel, Executive Director of Our Family Coalition, and Samer Danfoura, San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commissioner and LGBT Advisory Committee member; Human Rights Commission (HRC) Executive Director Theresa Sparks and HRC staff Larry Brinkin, Nadia Babella, Hadas Rivera-Weiss, and Domenic Viterbo; Alice Kessler from Equality California (EQCA), Nathan Purkiss, Rahul, Kari Stevens, and Jerry Berbiar; the LGBT Advisory Committee members for both 2009 and 2010 with special thanks to Poonam, Bart Broome, Martin Rawlings-Fein, Brad Vanderbilt, Mark Dunlop, and Mark Snyder; the San Francisco LGBT Community Center and Center Women Present; and finally the members of the public who attended the forum and contributed their experiences with chosen family relationships.

A Note on Language

Sometimes the English language fails us. Sometimes concepts that exist in our thoughts, or even in other languages, have no generally understood name in English. Such is the case with the term alternative family ..

As initially envisioned, the public forum that was the genesis of this report was intended to focusus on kinship structures among people who are not related by blood or legal adoption. Emancipated youth, seniors, those estranged from their legally recognized families, and others were invited to discuss how their alternative families were created from bonds of friendship, mentoring, and caregiving. However, the working group organizing the forum struggled to find a term that would be generally understood and come closest to those families unrecognized by current language and legal structures.

Ultimately, the word alternative was used because it was more widely understood than non- conjugal and sounded better than non-kinship. However, the term alternative family presents its own problems. Alternative denotes a second-class status to these families, reminiscent of the days when LGBT individuals were derogatively labeled as people practicing an alternative lifestyle. These families are not alternatives, they are real families, and are as present and loving as other families that are labeled traditional. Another challenge with the term alternative family is that it is too broad, as it is commonly understood to include LGBT couples in intimate relationships who were not the focus of the public forum and are not the focus of this report. Despite the recognition that the word alternative has been used by some to marginalize the LGBT community, and despite its overly broad meaning, the families which were the focus of the public forum were labeled alternative simply because it was the closest, generally understood term that could be found. Clearly, the love shared between people is never alternative or secondary to those who are loving or being loved. It is the hope of the authors of this report that someday soon there will be better language, as well as better legal mechanisms, to label and support chosen relationships of mutual commitment in all their sizes and shapes.

!"#$ ' San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Part I: Introduction

by Samer Danfoura Member, LGBT Advisory Committee

What is an Alternative Family?

Seniors without legal spouses or children and no surviving relatives are becoming more common as nuclear families have become smaller. Emancipated foster youth and others who are not biologically related are forming deep, long-lasting familial bonds. People, for reasons as varied as all humanity, often have no long-term romantic partner and yet have formed profound emotional connections with others who are not biologically related. The prevalence of these non-spousal alternative relationships is increasing and, while they provide emotional, financial, and caregiving support structures, these vital relationships - these alternative families - are made more vulnerable by the absence of family law protections.

The issue of alternative families transcends sexual orientation and ; however, the lesbian gay bisexual (LGBT) community appears to have more alternative family relationships than the general population. Many LGBT people are estranged from their blood relatives, have no spouse, and rely on alternative family relationships without the legal protections of married spouses or relatives. These people are more than friends and they are not lovers. They are as brothers and sisters or adults with senior mentors, and they often become caregivers when illness or infirmity strikes, but they have no legal standing in hospitals, no employer benefits, and no place in the legal line of consanguinity.

This report was born from the experiences of the LGBT community in San Francisco, but the reality is that anyone may find themselves at some point in life without the love and support of a spouse or relative. Alternative family relationships have always existed, in big cities and small towns, and they can be found wherever there are people who are lucky enough to consider themselves loved by another. Fostering these relationships by acknowledging their existence and then protecting them as we do biological families is in the best interests of everyone, in every jurisdiction.

Inception of the Forum

When I originally proposed the idea that the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Advisory Committee (LGBTAC) of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission (HRC)

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

hold an event regarding the unique familial relationships that LGBT people create, I initially pitched the concept as a celebration of our families at a time when LGBT families were under attack by right-wing conservatives opposed to marriage equality. It was April 2008, when my own alternative family, consisting of my partner, my long-time brother of choice, and me, were embarking on a joyous opportunity of growth. We were buying a house together. It was unstated but understood that by purchasing a home for our alternative family we were “legalizing” our emotional ties with a physical representation of our spiritual connections.

That year the alternative families proposal did not win enough votes to become one of the issues addressed by the LGBTAC’s limited resources. However, the following year, the Advisory Committee reconsidered the concept and decided to take on the important issue of non-conjugal alternative family relationships. Poonam, Bart Broome, and I, with the support of HRC Chair, Cecilia Chung, and HRC staff, Nadia Babella, Hadas Rivera- Weiss and Domenic Viterbo, began planning what became the ground-breaking public forum and panel discussion billed as “Beyond Marriage: Recognizing Alternative Family Relationships.” More importantly, the concept had expanded from being purely a celebratory event to a forum seeking to identify the legal and institutional obstacles faced by alternative families and included an exploration of potential governmental solutions to those obstacles.

From this committed group of volunteers and HRC staff, we were driven to plan an event that would both honor and support all kinds of families that LGBT people have created. Our effort culminated in a panel and public forum sponsored by the LGBTAC October 29, 2009 at the San Francisco LGBT Community Center. The purpose of the panel and forum was to bring experts and the public together to discuss alternative families, which we defined as non-spousal relationships between people who are not related by blood, marriage or adoption. The forum drew approximately 70 people with the intent to explore the prevalence of these alternative relationships and to identify how government can support non-spousal alternative family relationships beyond the current push for marriage equality.

The Forum Discussion

The forum consisted of three parts: Comments from LGBT Leaders; Presentations from a Panel of Experts; and a Public Discussion.

Comments from LGBT Leaders Four San Francisco LGBT leaders provided opening remarks to contextualize the event within the historical and current political climate. Those leaders consisted of Tom Ammiano, Member of the California State Assembly; David Campos, Member of the

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

San Francisco Board of Supervisors; Theresa Sparks, Executive Director of the SFHRC; and Larry Brinkin, Manager of the LGBT – HIV Division of the SFHRC.

Assemblymember Ammiano provided important historical narrative of the late Hank Wilson, who was one of the founders of the LGBTAC. He discussed a judicial system that categorically refused to recognize families consisting of two women with children, and that elevated biological paternal rights above the best interests of the children. In response, a group was formed to provide gay male sperm to lesbian would-be-mothers. Mr. Ammiano became a donor, and 10 years later, formed an alternative family of his own when he established a relationship with his biological offspring and her two mothers.

Supervisor Campos highlighted the interconnection between LGBT alternative families and immigrant rights. Supervisor Campos discussed the similarities between immigrants to the United States and LGBT transplants to San Francisco, both fleeing persecution in the hopes of a better life, where they form loving alternative familial

relationships that deserve to be honored. Supervisor Campos & Assemblymember Ammiano Moreover, Supervisor Campos recognized that the right to define family is integral to the right to keep them together and that the expansion of family law would necessarily expand all kinds of rights, especially immigration rights.

Director Sparks recognized that many LGBT people have come to San Francisco after being rejected by their birth families and have created their own loving alternative families. Director Sparks also identified the care-circle that LGBT leaders created to provide familial health support to Harry Hay, an early gay community leader, and his partner John Burnside. The 15 members of the care-circle came together as an alternative family to provide financial stability and medical care for these two gay leaders because there was no birth family to do so.

Mr. Brinkin spoke about his experience during the 1970s living in a commune that was a collective of different alternative family relationships for more than 12 years. Mr. Brinkin stated that the communal members faced several legal barriers with regard to housing and medical services, and was pleased to see that progress has been made to remove some of those barriers.

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Presentations from a Panel of Experts The panel of alternative family experts consisted of Judy Appel, Executive Director of Our Family Coalition; myself, Samer Danfoura, a member of an alternative family, an Immigrant Rights Commissioner, an LGBTAC member, and a local attorney; Melanie Rowen, staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); and Cathy Sakimura, another staff attorney for NCLR and the coordinator of the NCLR Family Protection Project. The panel addressed three questions: (1) What kinds of non- spousal alternative families exist today; (2) What obstacles or legal hurdles exist for non-spousal alternative family relationships; and (3) What can be done to support alternative families through legal and other means.

The panel’s responses to these questions are provided in Part II of this report and a video recording of the event is available online at the link designated below. Everyone on the panel acknowledged that state law governs the rights and responsibilities of kinship such as medical decision-making, inheritance, and disposition of remains. However, many of these rights and responsibilities often are not available to non- spousal alternative families without creating complex and costly contracts between the parties.

The panel identified family law mechanisms that have been expanded to focus on spousal and parental relationships through marriage, divorce, adoption, and emancipation of youth, but non-spousal familial relationships have not seen an equal expansion. Some of this failure is due to the lack of awareness and support for non- spousal alternative families. Most people have encountered others in alternative family relationships, but did not recognize them as family. Some people in those relationships do not even identify their relationships as “familial” because of the lack of language to that end. Besides the failure to identify or label these relationships, the panel also identified the problem that there is no easy way to convey a legal standing between non- Samer Danfoura, Theresa Sparks, Melanie Rowen, Judy Appel, & Cathy Sakimura spousal alternative families.

Regarding solutions, some of those identified by the panel include: expansion of California’s domestic partnership law to allow different sex couples under age 62 to also register and to allow registration of non-spousal parties; creation of local government mechanisms for alternative families to more affordably convey contractual benefits and responsibilities; passage of a state law to allow people to sign up for traditional family rights through a “designated beneficiaries” process similar to what has been established

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Police Commission and served there at the same time as Ms Sparks. Joking, she said they agreed on perhaps half the issues. However, she added that they agree on the essential issues of family and human rights.

Ms Sparks introduced Supervisor Campos as a close friend and a person who stands up for civil rights and particularly the immigrant community.

David Campos, Member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Supervisor Campos thanked Ms Sparks for her comments. He said that Assemblymember Ammiano is a very difficult act to follow both as a speaker and as a Supervisor. Mr. Campos filled the seat on the Board of Supervisors vacated by Mr. Ammiano when he was elected to the State Assembly.

Supervisor Campos said he was happy to be among people at the forum who he considers to be an extended family. One of the things that happens when you take on an issue like immigration is that it brings out the best and the worst in people. He said his office in the last few weeks has been subjected to that. He said that following in the footsteps of Tom Ammiano gives him strength and courage, because as difficult as it is for us to do what we think is right today, when Assemblymember Ammiano started out he was a lone voice on the Board of Education and then on the Board of Supervisors for a long time.

Supervisor Campos said the fight about LGBT rights and immigrant rights comes down to family. It’s the interconnection for family that underscores the issues. The fight against the policy that the Mayor instituted - where if you are an undocumented kid, you don’t get due process - is really a policy that is tearing families apart. That issue is dividing people in a way that goes contrary to the family values that so many in this country say they believe in.

The impact of LGBT discrimination comes down to families and the definition of a family, and the alternative family concept goes through the very heart of these issues. Supervisor Campos said that he adds the immigrant perspective and he thinks that you cannot talk about alternative families without recognizing the need to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. He sees it especially in his district (District 9 in the Mission) particularly, where so many LGBT men and women left their biological families behind escaping persecution and are here in the U.S. alone. However, they are not alone entirely because these immigrants have created alternative families. They are in every sense of the word their brothers, their sisters in everyway except biologically. These relationships transcend blood or sexual relationships and society has a problem understanding it.

It is only appropriate that these alternative family relationships be discussed here because San Francisco has led the way on so many issues. Same-sex marriage,

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

universal health care, equal benefits for domestic partners…on all of the issues San Francisco has set the tone for the rest of the country. It is important that we understand the interconnection of all of these family issues. Supervisor Campos offered the assistance of his office with district issues or with legislation to address legal protections for alternative families. He thanked the HRC for allowing him to address the forum.

Director Sparks Director Sparks commended Supervisor Campos for his courage in standing up for the immigrant community. She said that she would be remiss if she didn’t ask the Chair of the Human Rights Commission to make a few comments. She said that Cecilia Chung is her friend, a national leader on HIV issues, treatment and education, and one of her personal heroes in life.

Commissioner Cecilia Chung, Chair, San Francisco Human Rights Commission Commissioner Chung thanked everyone for coming on behalf of the LGBT Advisory Committee. She said that they have been planning the Forum for a long time and that she is proud to have committee members who have put so much time figuring out how to bring these issues to the community.

Alternative family is an important issue for Ms Chung on a personal level. When she first transitioned from male to female she did not have the support of her own family and ended up on the street calling the Tenderloin “home.” She found support in many gay friends who called her their sister and provided the nurturing and protection that she needed. Without them, she would not be alive today.

Family is more than just the clan we are born into. She said that family is also defined by the people we choose as family. It is any place where love, protection, nurture, and hope are found. Hopefully, there will be time to hear from the panel and to hear from the audience what are your experiences and your definition of family.

Director Sparks Director Sparks said that Larry Brinkin has been involved with the HRC for many years and that he was actually the person who coined the term “domestic partners.” He has worked on every issue brought before the Human Rights Commission for more than 20 years and he is now retiring in February. He is the Manager of the LGBT-HIV Division of the HRC and the guiding soul of the HRC.

Larry Brinkin, Manager of the LGBT – HIV Division of the Human Rights Commission Mr. Brinkin welcomed everyone and said that alternative family is an important discussion because we have been working on family relationships since the 1960’s. He said he lived in a commune in the 1970s and that it consisted of alternative family relationships. He lived in the commune for 12 years which included co-parenting a baby,

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

and among commune’s members were gay, straight, and bisexual people. The group often ran into legal barriers because no one recognized that they were a family for hospital visitation, when renting a house, and other times. This has been an important discussion for many years and we keep moving along the continuum toward greater equality and toward expanding who we are, what we mean to each other, and what family really means.

Before going to the panel discussion, he thanked his staff who are very hard working people and who assisted with the Forum, including Nadia Babella, Hadas Rivera-Weiss, and Domenic Viterbo. He also recognized Human Rights Commissioner Faye Woo Lee who was in the audience.

Director Sparks Director Sparks advised the audience that the Forum was being video recorded and those who did not want to be captured on video should sit at the back of the room. She said that it was her honor to introduce the distinguished panel, all of whom are knowledgeable about this issue of alternative families. Each panelist had been asked to answer in turn three key questions regarding alternative families, and she said that the audience also would be given an opportunity to comment.

Director Sparks said the purpose of the Forum was to gather information and to understand the issues so that the Human Rights Commission can determine the best ways to move forward.

The first panelist introduced by Ms Sparks was Judy Appel who is the Executive Director of Our Family Coalition, an organization that promotes civil rights and well being of Bay Area LGBTQ families with children, and prospective parents through education, advocacy, social networking, and grass roots community organizing. Ms Appel has more than 10 years experience as a public interest lawyer involved in policy based work and more than 20 years working for non-profits both nationally and internationally.

The next panelist introduced was Samer Danfoura who lives in an alternative family. He, his partner, and his brother of choice, a good friend since they were both 17, bought a home in San Francisco together 15 months ago. The three men, along with a dog and a cat, live together and have made their own non-conjugal family. Mr. Danfoura is an attorney in private practice serving a diverse clientele, and he is a community volunteer for the Arab American Discrimination Committee and the LGBT Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Commission. He was recently appointed by Mayor to the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission.

Melanie Rowen was then introduced. Ms Rowen has been a staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) since 2006. She is actively involved with

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

NCLR’s full range of case work with a focus on transgender issues and elder law, and she manages the organization’s Law Clerk Program. Previously Ms Rowen was a litigation associate with the San Francisco law firm of Latham and Watkins where she was an NCLR cooperating attorney doing pro bono work for the homeless and individuals with HIV/AIDS.

The final panelist introduced was Cathy Sakimura who is a staff attorney for NCLR and is the coordinator of the NCLR Family Protection Project. Ms Sakimura works to increase access to family law for low income LGBT parents and their children with a focus on increasing service to families of color. The Project provides free and low cost legal services to LGBT families, trains and supports lawyers providing free and low cost services to these families, and works in coalition with other organizations to provide culturally competent services to families of color. Ms Sakimura is currently a member of the Board of Directors of COLAGE, a national movement of children, youth, and adults with one or more LGBTQ parents.

Moving on to questions, the first was directed to Ms Appel and Mr. Danfoura and they were asked to keep their responses to 3 minutes.

Question 1 – What kinds of non-spousal alternative families exist today?

Judy Appel Ms Appel thanked Director Sparks and said she was honored to be included on the panel. She said it has been both fun to prepare for this forum and also a challenge. Our Family Coalition is often tasked with pushing the envelop on how the world and LGBT community is seeing and recognizing families with children. Thinking beyond families with children requires that we consider how we define “family” and what legal protections might be needed for this expanded definition.

After reviewing numerous definitions of family the one most suitable here was “a network of mutual commitment.” It’s simple and it allows us to self-define our families of choice. This definition also allows us to define our families in different ways, for different reasons, and at different moments.

Ms Appel conveyed a story of a conversation she had with her children ages 8 and 11. They were talking about another family that they know that has the same biological donor as her kids. They used an anonymous donor so it is just by chance that they know this family, and they see them perhaps once every six months. They don’t really call them “family,” but the kids understand the relationship. In the conversation they were talking about how they would build their family tree. The children talked about Ms Appel’s family and her partner’s family and then they spoke of their family of choice… all the other adults in their lives that help care for the kids. Ms Appel asked what they thought about the other family with the same biological donor, and they said that they

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

decisions, and estate planning documents like wills and agreements stating who should take care of your estate if something happens to you.

A local government could create mechanisms, perhaps connected to the court, that would enable people to more easily access the creation of these documents without an estate planning attorney. This could be a more streamlined process, especially for low- income families and others who may not know what protections may be available to them.

Colorado just recently passed a law which created a system for what is called “designated beneficiaries.” Under this law, any two people can go to the county clerk and register the rights checked on a list which they choose to convey between them. For example, they can choose who they want to inherit property from them and they don’t have to check everything. They can select only those rights that work in their particular relationship situation. What’s great is that you pay one fee, you have a simple mechanism for conveying rights, and you have a streamlined process where government is providing access to people who might otherwise not receive these protections.

These are just a few things that are either currently happening or could happen and Ms Sakimura is interested to hear what ideas others have to protect alternative families.

Judy Appel There has been a regional effort to get LGBT people to foster older queer youth. We can be a resource for young people who have been rejected by their families and still need homes and people to care for them and understand them. Making this easier is something that also should be explored.

Samer Danfoura All our families need advocacy and deserve equal recognition, and that’s not what is happening now. It may not be that every alternative family needs all the rights conveyed between married couples or blood relatives. We should look at how we can unpack the bundled rights of the model family and figure out what are the underlying values and assumptions that go into that legal framework. I suspect that we will find community property rights, inheritance rights, and all the things viewed as essential to the model nuclear family, are needed by some alternative families. However, we may also find that the heterosexual family legal structures could be opened up to become as introspective and open minded as alternative families have had to be.

Melanie Rowen What is interesting about bundles of rights is that advancing alternative family rights may need to be a piecemeal process. While marriage equality may be completed with a single law stating that gay couples be treated the same as other couples, to address

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

how specific rights are allocated, you have to look at each one. We can do advocacy about people being taxed out of their homes, about how many people you can name to visit you in the hospital, about each individual right. Rights that really “get under people’s skin” can be points of community activism that we can work with on an individual basis. These rights should not be conveyed through a single large court action; in fact, they can’t be accomplished that way. This necessary piecemeal approach can be a strength for making alternative family rights happen.

Director Sparks An alternative family arrangement that she has known about was the one around Harry Hay who was an early gay community leader and who was an advocate before almost anyone alive today. He and his partner John Burnside retired to San Francisco and they were Radical Faeries. They formed a care circle of people around them of about 15 people and they became a part of Harry’s and John’s extended family, but not necessarily to each other. This group worked together to provide for their care, both financial and medical, and lasted until both had passed. It was a very functional and wonderful thing to watch, and it grew organically out of a community to care for these two elders. We need to have a way to recognize these types of cooperative care arrangements and understand how they could be adapted for the larger society.

Comments from the Audience Unidentified Audience Member – He is glad that Assembly Bill 12 was mentioned and wanted to thank the advocates for doing that work. When he was at the he saw foster youth who had “timed out” of the foster care system at age 18 and were dropped from Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program), just as they reach the legal age allowed to make hormonal changes to their bodies. Regarding AB 12, are you considering the loss of health insurance as part of the raising of the maximum age for a foster youth?

Ms Sakimura replied that this is absolutely a big issue for young people. Although it hasn’t been successful, NCLR has been involved in a long litigation in New York regarding a foster youth that was getting transition related care, was in that threshold age range, and was trying to get coverage for that transition related care. Access to healthcare is an issue for all foster youth aging out of the system, but it is particularly acute for transgender youth who may not be allowed to get gender related care until they are 18. While she didn’t know if AB 12 will specifically address that issue, it is one that NCLR is concerned about.

Unidentified Audience Member – While we acknowledge that there are all kinds of alternative families, not just those in the LGBT community, there are two concerns when we start talking about the legal ramifications. First, do we really want to ask the government into our homes to prove we have a connected

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

relationship; and second, there is a potential for abuse that could be a large issue. For example, a person with a rent controlled apartment may want to temporarily register a domestic partnership so that a low rent lease can be conveyed to another person.

Mr. Danfoura responded that what is sought is an equality of family options that would be available to everyone. The potential for abuse can happen with married couples and domestic partners now, and it is not unique to alternative families.

Director Sparks Director Sparks said that she was estranged from two of her children for almost nine years and had a very rocky relationship with her third child. Like many people who have lost connection with their blood relatives she formed an alternative family. For her, however, she was able to reconnect with her kids and the result has been the merging of the two – her blood relatives and her extended family – to create one large supportive family group. Not everyone is that lucky. Sometimes biological family emerges who are hostile. There are so many angles around this community dilemma that we need to continue to have these discussions to flesh out what these issues are.

The LGBT Advisory Committee will continue to work on alternative family issues and will recommend to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission what they believe are the next steps for addressing the concerns of alternative families. The Human Rights Commission can develop a regulatory framework that in turn can be recommended to the Board Supervisors for legislative action. In most cases the Board has adopted what has been recommended by the Human Rights Commission. This forum is the beginning of a larger process and we now are identifying the issues of alternative families.

Director Sparks then invited anyone on the panel or in the audience to make further comments.

Comments from the Audience Unidentified Audience Member – The far right often says that if marriage equality is granted to gay couples, then we will have all sorts of other relationships that will have to be recognized. Polyamorous relationships are commonly cited. While many in our community would be fine with that, in the battle for marriage equality it is used against us. How do we balance the advancement of alternative family rights with the effort to win marriage equality? She is concerned that by advocating for alternative families we feed our opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments and we could lose the very important battle for marriage equality.

Unidentified Audience Member – She is excited to see people talk about multiple forms of kinship and ask that they be recognized and protected. She

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

thanked the panel for holding this forum in the community. She is interested in comparative law, such as the different ways that the French system handles family law. She asked the panel what they know of alternative family law in other places.

Mr. Danfoura mentioned that in Canada there have been several studies of how to recognize non-conjugal relationships. Much of this data is available online.

Ms Rowen added that she is also interested in how other jurisdictions in the world handle alternative families. Looking at how others have solved problems is something that America needs to be doing more. Ms Rowen also spoke about the slippery slope concern of the previous speaker. In Washington, Maine, and Kalamazoo polling shows that the slippery slope arguments are not getting much traction with the public. Opponents are no longer using slippery slope arguments in their commercials. It came up in the California marriage cases and was dealt with because it doesn’t stand the test of logical argument. In short, approving one thing doesn’t always lead to another. It simply isn’t true. What is showing up in the ads is “equally annoying,” but slippery slope is not what is being used now.

Mr. Danfoura said that he was troubled by the slippery slope question because it prioritizes one type of family, couples seeking marriage, over alternative families. Why should one be more important than another, and be asked to wait while others have their day in the sun? This issue has come up at various times in the LGBT movement with transgender and bisexual people being asked to allow gay and lesbian rights to go first. He said that instead of worrying about how others will receive the LGBT community, we should concern ourselves with how we receive each other.

Unidentified Audience Member – It has never been an “either/or” situation. He said he grew up in a foster home and did not relate to the Brady Bunch and Donna Reed. For many years as a young adult, he didn’t think that those families existed anywhere. Later he learned that wasn’t true. It is not a question of whether we have marriage OR alternative families. We have always had both of them. His foster home included 7 to 15 kids and a single mom, and together they were a family. At the end of the day, love is love and it is what protects children. People who in their hearts really want to protect children, will see the love in this alternative family debate. Those whose hearts are lower than they should be will refuse to see that love.

Unidentified Audience Member – With so many people in the LGBT community that don’t fit a monogamous couple model and may not be interested in marriage, actually advocating for what is more genuine in our communities will bring everyone along and we will have more power. Also, there are many unexplored

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

affinities with other communities who are also experiencing a lot of pressure on their families. For example in New York there are many straight, thirty-something Generation Xers who don’t have families, aren’t married, and aren’t interested in marriage as yet. These heterosexual people are having alternative families and could be allies if we can touch that piece of their need.

Ms Appel said that having straight allies is an interesting point as well as the point about there always being both marriage and alternative families. Marriage is the basis of the attacks from the Right. We have to find a way to resist those attacks and bring alternative families and the Manhattan Gen Xers along with us. We also have to find a way to get some of the 51% of Californians that just voted for Proposition 8 saying we shouldn’t have marriage equality. Marriage is the battle we face today, and while we could just walk away from that battle, Ms Appel said we should instead work to not allow the battle for marriage to completely subsume our movement. We have to look thoughtfully at how to advance both marriage and alternative families.

Director Sparks said that we saw this issue in the federal Hate Crimes Bill just recently where gender identity was thrown out as a red herring. After embracing everyone we saw success. The same debate continues with ENDA (the federal Employment Non- Discrimination Act) and it remains to be seen if we will have success with that bill. However, today even the Human Rights Campaign is supporting transgender employment rights. Our lesson here is that the LGBT community is one community and we need to stick together. Marriage equality is a very important issue that we need to protect as we go forward, but not at the expense of any other movement.

Ms Sparks said that in talking with Geoffrey Kors at Equality California they are aware there are many other battles to be fought and keep that in mind as they advance marriage. We are a community and that community includes all of us. Ms Appel added that it is our job to hold accountable the leaders of the advocacy organizations that represent us at the statewide and national level. These organizations must represent the broader interests of our community.

Director Sparks then thanked the San Francisco Human Rights Commission staff who helped organize this forum and concluded the event.

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Part III: Alternative Family Narratives

Nathan and Rahul by Nathan Purkiss

Rahul and I were living in Sacramento in 2003 when we met online and went out on a date. He was an undergrad student at UC Davis and he hadn’t come out of the closet yet to his family because they were very conservative.

We had a very nice time on our date, but when he told me that he was still in the closet and didn’t have any gay friends yet, I told him that I would be his friend. I remember when I was younger the gay community could seem so alienating when you first come out, and so I told him that even though I had a great time and was flattered a younger guy like him was interested, I really thought he should have someone who will just be a friend for him. And so we started a friendship together. We started hanging out and would speak to each other every day. We went on road trips together and I took him to his first gay bar. I kind of became his gay big brother.

A year later, Rahul and I became inspired by all the same sex that started taking place by Mayor Newsom in San Francisco and so we went to a rally together in Sacramento to support them. A San Francisco Chronicle photographer took a picture of us at that rally. When the photographer asked us for our names, I stopped Rahul and told him – are you sure you want to do this? You know what this means? He replied – “Yeah, I really want to do this – actually I think it’s perfect.”

The Chronicle printed our picture in the newspaper and we knew it was inevitable that his family would find out that he was gay. Sure enough, later that week I dropped him off at his apartment, and right after I dropped him off, something really strange happened. Rahul disappeared for more than a week. First he didn’t return my calls for a few days, so then I called his roommates and they hadn’t seen him. Then I called his work and he hadn’t show up for several days and the

boss was worried. Nathan & Rahul as pictured in the San Francisco Chronicle, February 15, 2004.

His roommates still hadn’t seen him at all, and so I called his dad, and his family hadn’t heard from him either. So I began to really freak out. His family didn’t seem too concerned, but as the only person who knew he was gay and just starting to learn about

  San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Appendix 1: Forum Flyer

  Beyond Marriage: Recognizing Alternative Family Relationships a ground-breaking public forum and panel discussion

Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:00 – 7:30 pm

LGBT Community Center, Ceremonial Room, 4 th Floor 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, CA

The LGBT Advisory Committee of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission invites the public to participate in a forum to discuss how to recognize alternative kinship structures among people who are not related by blood or legal adoption. Emancipated youth, seniors, those estranged from their legally recognized families, and others will discuss how their alternative families have been created from bonds of friendship, mentoring, and caregiving.

Panelists:  Cathy Sakimura, Staff Attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights  Judy Appel, Executive Director of Our Family Coalition  Samer Danfoura, Alternative Family Member  Melanie Rowen, Staff Attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights

Comments by: th  Tom Ammiano, California State Assemblymember, 13 District  David Campos, Member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors  Theresa Sparks, Executive Director of the SF Human Rights Commission  YOU, members of the public with experience in non-spousal alternative families

For Discussion:  What kinds of non-spousal alternative families exist?  What obstacles or legal hurdles exist for these relationships?  What can be done to support alternative families through legal and other means?

Please join us for a one-of-a-kind discussion on the future of alternative families. Snacks and engaging discussion will be provided at this free event. Special thanks to the SF LGBT Center, Center Women Present. To request childcare or for more information about the forum contact Nadia Babella, SF Human Rights Commission, (415) 252-3212.

P www.sfHumanRightsCommission.org San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Appendix 2: HRC Press Release

 7 City and County of San Francisco Human Rights Commission Contract Compliance Gavin Newsom Dispute Resolution/Fair Housing Mayor Small and Micro Local Business Enterprise Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Discrimination

Theresa Sparks Executive Director

NEWS RELEASE

October2 0,2 009 Forin formationco ntact: Nadia Babella (415) 252-3212 Larry Brinkin (415) 252-2510

GROUND-BREAKING LGBT PUBLIC FORUM GOING BEYOND MARRIAGE SF Human Rights Commission’s LGBT Advisory Committee Sponsoring Forum on Alternative Family Relationships

San Francisco - The Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Advisory Committee (LGBTAC) of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission (SFHRC) today announced a ground-breaking panel discussion and public forum, entitled, Beyond Marriage: Recognizing Alternative Family Relationships. The forum will explore alternative kinship structures among people who are not related by blood, marriage, domestic partnership or legal adoption.

“Without legal protections afforded to spouses, children, or even siblings, these profound caregiving relationships often involve huge personal sacrifice in the love and care of people without legal family,” said Theresa Sparks, Executive Director of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission. “The LGBT Advisory Committee’s forum will rightly explore what happens to alternative families in crisis and how our legal system fails to support these relationships in times of hardship.”

In addition to members of the public, the forum’s participants will include several distinguished guests including State Senator , Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, City Supervisor David Campos, and representatives from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition.

As part of its overall mission to address the discrimination faced by LGBT individuals, the LGBT Advisory Committee has organized this panel and forum to highlight alternative kinship structures that will not be legally recognized even after same-sex couples have achieved equal marriage rights. These constructed families may include: • Unrelated seniors supporting each other in non-spousal relationships; • Emancipated youth and young adults in sibling-like relationships; • Close friends or mentors and mentees in long standing relationships; and • Loving caregivers supporting those with HIV/AIDS, disability, or end of life issues.

Beyond Marriage: Recognizing Alternative Family Relationships will be held on Thursday, October 29, 2009 from 6:00 to 7:30 pm at the LGBT Community Center, 4 th Floor, 1800 Market Street at Octavia. The press and public are invited. # # #

TEL (415) 252-2500 25 Van Ness Avenue FAX (415) 431-5764 Suite 800 TDD (415) 252-2550 San Francisco www.SFhumanrightscommission.org P California 94102-6033 San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Appendix 3: Colorado Designated Beneficiary Agreement

 9 San Francisco Human Rights Commission Beyond Marriage: Unrecognized Family Relationships

Appendix 4: California Domestic Partnership Registration Form

 52 State of California FILE NO: ______Secretary of State

DECLARATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP

Please read instructions on reverse side before completing form.

We the undersigned, do declare that we meet the requirements of Family Code section 297, which are as follows: This Space For Filing Use Only • Both persons have a common residence. • Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another dom estic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity. • Both persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in this state. • Both persons are at least 18 years of age. • Both persons are members of the same sex, OR one or both of the persons of opposite sex are over the age of 62 and meet the eligibility criteria under T itle II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Secti on 402(a) for old-age insurance ben efits or Title XVI of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged individuals. • Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership. • Both persons consent to the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts of California for the purpose of a proceeding to obtain a judgment of dissolution or nullity of the domestic par tnership or for legal separation of part ners in the domestic partnership, or for any other proceeding related to the partners' rights and obligations, even if one or both partners ceases to be a resident of, or to maintain a domicile in, this state.

The representations are true and corre ct, and contain no material omissi ons of fact to the best of our knowledge and belief. Filing an intentionally and materially false Declaration of Domestic Partnership shall be puni shable as a misdemeanor. (F amily Code sect ion 298(c).) PARTNER 1 PARTNER 2

______Printed Name (Last) (First) (Middle) Printed Name (Last) (First) (Middle)

______Signature of Partner as Stated Above Signature of Partner as Stated Above

OPTIONAL Name Changes: OPTIONAL Name Changes:

New Last Name______New Last Name______

New Middle Name ______New Middle Name ______

Date of Birth (required for name change) ______Date of Birth (required for name change) ______

Mailing Address City State Zip

State of California NOTARIZATION IS REQUIRED County of ______

On , before me, ___, Notary Public, personally appeared______, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

______Signature of Notary Public [SEAL]

SEC/STATE NP/SF DP-1 (Rev 1/08) INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE DECLARATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP (FORM NP/SF DP-1)

For easier completion, this form is avail able on the Secretary of State’s website at www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/. It can be viewed, filled in and printed from your computer. If you do not complete this form online, please type or legibly print in black or blue ink. Do not alter this form.

Statutory filing provisions are found in California Family Code sections 297 and 298. All statutory references are to the California Family Code, unless otherwise stated.

Complete the Declaration of Domestic Partnership (Form NP/SF DP-1) as follows:

 Both persons must meet all of the requirements of Section 297, as stated on the front of the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form.

 Both persons must sign and affix their signatures to the same Declaration of Domestic Partnership form.

 Both persons must print their names legibly. The names must be printed in the order requested: Last name, First name, Middle name. If there is a suffix, i.e. Jr., Sr., etc., include this as part of the last name.

 One or both persons to a registered domestic part nership may change the middle or last names by which that person wishes to be known after registra tion of the domestic partner ship by entering the new name and including their date of birth in the spaces provided on the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form. A person may adopt any of the following middle or last names: the current last name of the other domestic partner; the last name of either domestic partner given at birth; a name combining into a single last name all or a segment of the cu rrent last name or the last name of either domestic partner given at birth; or a hyphenated combination of last names. (Section 298.6.)

 A complete mailing address is required (address, city, st ate, zip code.) Print legibly. Do not abbreviate city names.

 The signature of both persons must be notarized with a certificate of acknowledgment. The Declaration of Domestic Partnership must be signed using the nam e of the individual prior to the name change, if any.

The completed form can be mailed to Secretary of State, Domestic Partners Registry, P.O. Box 942877, Sacramento, CA 94277-0001 or delivered in person to the Sacramento office, 1500 11 th Street, 2 nd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 OR can be hand delivered for over-the-counter processing to t he Los Angeles regional office. Please refer to the Secretary of State’s website at www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/ for office locations and phone numbers.

FEES:  The fee for filing Form NP/SF DP-1 is $10.00.

 For same-sex partners, an additional $23.00 fee must be paid at the time of filing the form, for a total of $33.00.

 There is an additional $15.00 special handling fee fo r processing a document delivered in person to the Sacramento office or to the Los Angeles regional office. Payments for documents submitted:

 by mail to Sacramento can be made by check or money order.

 over-the-counter in Sacramento can be made by che ck, money order, cash, or credit card (Visa or MasterCard).

 over-the-counter in the Los Angeles regional office can be made by check, money order, or credit card (Visa or Master Card). The Los Angeles regional office is not able to accept cash. Checks or money orders should be made payable to the Secretary of State.

The additional $23.00 fee will be used to develop and support a trai ning curriculum specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic abuse support service providers who serve that community in regard to domestic violence, and to provide brochures specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic abuse. Brochures developed by the State Department of Public Health will be available upon request from the Secretary of State, as funding allows. What should an adult interdependent partner agreement look like? This agreement is prepared by the partners with A proper agreement must follow the schedule or without the assistance of a lawyer or third created in the regulations for this act, as outlined party. below.

Schedule, Adult Interdependent Partner Agreement

Between: ( Name and address of adult interdependent partner ) and ( Name and address of adult interdependent partner )

We understand that by entering into this agreement we will become each other’s adult interdependent partner and will have all the benefits and obligations of adult interdependent partners under Alberta law.

1 We agree that (a) each of us is 16 years of age or older (b) neither of us is a party to an ongoing marriage or adult interdependent partner agreement, and (c) we are living or intend to live together in a relationship of interdependence

2 We understand that (a) pursuant to the Wills Act , each of our existing wills may be revoked by the entering into of this agreement, and (b) this agreement will expire if we become former adult interdependent partners pursuant to the Adult Interdependent Relationship Act .

In witness whereof we have executed this agreement in the (city, town, county) of (province, country) this ______day of (month), (year).

NOTES: (witness signature) Witness 1. Each adult interdependent partner’s ( print name and address) ( partner’s signature) signature must be witnessed by two Adult Interdependent Partner witnesses. 2. If either adult interdependent partner (witness signature) is under the age of 18 years, the Witness guardians of that person must sign above ( print name and address) indicating their consent to the person entering into the Adult Interdependent Partner Agreement. (witness signature) 3. A person who is under the age of 18 Witness years may not enter into an Adult ( print name and address) ( partner’s signature) Interdependent Partner Agreement if the Adult Interdependent Partner person is related to the other party by (witness signature) blood or adoption. Witness 4. An adult interdependent partner ( print name and address) agreement may be part of or attached to another agreement between the parties. 5. If an adult interdependent partner Guardian’s signatures (if applicable): agreement is part of or attached to Date:______Date:______another agreement between the parties that contains one or more provisions (Guardian signature) (Guardian signature) relating to the property of one or both of the parties, the parties are advised to Guardian Guardian seek legal advice as to their rights and (Print name) (Print name) obligations in respect to that property. Will there be a provincial, centralized registry • Adult interdependent partners will have the of adult interdependent partner agreements? ability to recover damages for the wrongful death of a partner. No. These agreements are personal contracts between people who agree to take on the • An adult interdependent partner may apply for responsibilities and benefits of an adult a protection order if an adult interdependent interdependent partnership either prior to the partner has subjected them to violence or three-year period or at any time after that time threat of violence. frame if they wish to formalize the relationship. • A public body may disclose personal information to the adult interdependent partner of an injured, ill or deceased individual, or so What are some examples of responsibilities that the person’s adult interdependent partner and benefits now extended to adult may be contacted. interdependent partners under this law? To provide equal access to Alberta law, the term • Various conflict of interest provisions extended “adult interdependent partner” has been added to to married couples will also apply to adult several acts that outline the financial interdependent partners. responsibilities and benefits of Albertans in both married and unmarried relationships. Note: For details on how these changes apply to assistance you are currently receiving from the An adult interdependent relationship may be Government of Alberta, call 310-0000 for toll-free considered when determining eligibility for connection to the program or service that may benefits or obligations under a variety of affect you. Government of Alberta programs and laws. For example: Does this legislation apply to relationships • Adult interdependent partners are obligated to financially support one another. that began prior to June 1, 2003? Yes. Time spent living together before June 1, • Adult interdependent partners and their dependants will be able to register together for 2003, will be taken into account when coverage under the Alberta Health Care determining whether or not two people will be Insurance Plan. Both partners’ incomes will be considered adult interdependent partners. considered when determining eligibility for For instance, if two people lived together for two premium assistance under the plan. years before June 1, 2003, and then continue to live together in a relationship of interdependence • Adult interdependent partners will be eligible for for over one year, as long as the total continuous insurance coverage (e.g. life, auto, property) time living together was more than three years, currently available to spouses. they will be considered adult interdependent • A deceased adult interdependent partner’s partners under this act. estate will be obligated to adequately provide for the surviving partner.

• An adult interdependent partner may access all or a portion of a deceased partner’s estate should the partner die without a will.

• An adult interdependent partner’s existing will may be revoked upon entering into an adult interdependent partner agreement. Does this law affect my taxes or pension Does this law change the definition of plan? marriage? Some Alberta laws must comply with federal No. The Alberta government recognizes that for legislation and therefore cannot include all many Albertans, marriage has a traditional, partnerships outlined in the Adult Interdependent religious and cultural meaning as a relationship Partnerships Act . between a man and a woman. Alberta law will continue to recognize this distinction. For example, the Alberta Personal Income Tax Act has been amended to adopt the federal This act defines “spouse” in all Alberta legislation definition of common-law partner* as required by as a married partner—a husband or a wife. our tax collection agreement with the federal government. Why were current Alberta laws changed? The Employment Pension Plans Act has been amended to include the term “pension partner.” Over the years, courts and lawmakers have Although this act applies to many committed, recognized the need for laws to address the unmarried relationships, it does not apply to all financial and property issues of people in adult interdependent partners because pension committed relationships outside of marriage. plans recognizing platonic relationships are not registerable under the Canadian Income Tax Act . Because committed unmarried relationships create financial dependencies and * According to the Federal Income Tax Act, a taxpayer's responsibilities, the government must: common-law partner is defined as a person who cohabits • in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer and either: ensure our laws clearly outline the has cohabited with the taxpayer for a continuous period responsibilities people willingly take on when of at least one year; or is the natural or adoptive parent they enter into a financially and emotionally of a child of the taxpayer. interdependent relationship; and,

• provide access to the courts or other legal mechanisms to settle disputes when these How can adult interdependent partners relationships come to an end. terminate their relationship?

• The partners may sign a written agreement stating their intention to live separate and Where can I find out more about this apart, without the possibility of reconciliation. legislation?

• The partners live separate and apart for more To view the law in its entirety or purchase it on than one year or both partners intend that the the Internet, visit the Queen’s Printer online at adult interdependent relationship not www.gov.ab.ca/qp (select Adult Interdependent continue. Relationships Act from the online catalogue).

• The partners marry each other or one of them To purchase a copy of the act, call the Queen’s marries or enters into an adult interdependent Printer (780) 427-4952 (dial 310-0000 first for relationship with a third party. toll-free connection anywhere in Alberta).

April 2003